An employment tribunal did not err in rejecting a criminal defence barrister’s claim that campaign group Stonewall caused or induced a discriminatory act against her by her chambers, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has found.
The Honourable Mr Justice Bourne dismissed Allison Bailey’s appeal in her high-profile discrimination case, finding no error of law in the decision.
Bailey alleged that Stonewall pressured managers at Garden Court Chambers, where she was a member, to discipline her for gender-critical beliefs and took both to the employment tribunal. Her claim succeeded against the chambers, with the tribunal finding that they had directly discriminated against her because of the protected characteristic of belief. Her claim against Stonewall was dismissed.
Ruling on Bailey's appeal, the judge said: ‘I have ruled that the right question was not whether the unlawful outcome was reasonably foreseeable but whether, in this statutory context, it is fair or reasonable or just to find Stonewall liable for causing it. But even if, contrary to my view, reasonable foreseeability is the correct test, then for the reasons I have set out, the ET was not bound to decide that issue in Ms Bailey’s favour.
‘On the facts that it found, the ET was entitled to find that Stonewall was not liable for causing the basic contravention. The key point was that responsibility for determining the complaint in a discriminatory way lay only with [the chambers].’
In a statement published on her website, Bailey said she was ‘sorry’ her appeal had been dismissed.
She added: ‘I am grateful to The Hon. Mr Justice Bourne for his reasoned judgment, although I am of course disappointed with the result. I will now consider next steps carefully with my legal team. In the meantime, thank you to everyone who has supported me. I am very sorry that we have been unable to prevail on this occasion.'
